The Obama Administration's War on Religion is Beyond Bold
Videos
While there has been quite a kerfuffle recently over a mythical "war on women", the weightier issue of a war on religion now has been enjoined. The University of Notre Dame and 42 other Catholic institutions filed lawsuits on Monday against Secretary Sebelius and Health and Human services (HHS). In August of 2011, under a provision of the Affordable Care Act, HHS Issued a mandate requiring religious institutions to provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs including Plan B (“the morning after pill”) and ella (“the week after pill”), as well as sterilization and contraception. While churches are narrowly exempted, other religious institutions such as colleges and charities must comply with the unprecedented edict. The suits filed Monday join previous ones, including three filed by presidents of evangelical colleges and universities.
In January of 2012, posturing by the President and other officials appeared to offer a compromise. But what became of the appearance of walking back such an explosive governmental intrusion into the religious liberties of American religious institutions? The entire charade was bogus. This administration handed out exemptions from Obamacare mandates to corporations like McDonald's so frequently that each additional episode became laughable. And yet, no exemptions have been granted to secure the religious liberties guaranteed under the mandate of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The administration in January 2012 merely gave institutions a year to comply. They alluded to a possible adjustment to the mandate in the future, and yet, simply allowed the rule to be codified into law as written.
Essentially the administration is saying, ‘We take your religious principles very seriously–so we’re giving you an extra year to get over them,’
Noted Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
She also stated:
No employer, particularly in this economy, should be forced to make the choice between violating its deeply held religious beliefs or terminating its health insurance plans for employees and paying a heavy fine.
This new mandate is an unprecedented departure from the free exercise of religion that such institutions have been guaranteed traditionally. But the careful guardianship crafted by our Constitution's Framers and by our legal system seems completely lost on Secretary Sebelius. In the video of a congressional hearing linked here, Secretary Sebelius readily admits her ignorance of the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees. In fact, she did not obtain a legal memo, nor did she consult any Supreme Court decisions on religious liberty before drafting the HHS mandate on abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception in August of 2011.
A perusal of a well-publicized U.S.Supreme Court decision in January of 2012 might have helped prepare the HHS Secretary for her grilling by Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, and the barrage of lawsuits fIled this week. In the court case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly upheld the "ministerial exception” which exempts religious groups from some nondiscrimination laws when picking their ministers.
The ruling allowed religious entities like the Hosanna-Tabor grade school to exercise wide latitude in its firing of an employee. The teacher in the suit, Cheryl Perich, had filed a lawsuit under the American Disabilities Act. The result was a highly unusual, unanimous 9-0 decision. Clearly, our Supreme Court justices of every stripe take religious liberty according to the First Amendment rather seriously.
On freedom of conscience, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority.”
This administration's brash aggression towards religious institutions is a fool's errand. Perhaps Secretary Sebelius assumed that her stealth assault on freedom of conscience was impervious to ordinary safeguards since she is no mere member of Congress. But no amount of shrouding this HHS edict in the noble garb of a crusade for women's health alters its overriding effect on the guarantee of religious liberty by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Marc
4:26 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Volatile topic for the Patch. I'm an atheist and I generally agree with you on this issue. Church and state need to be as separate as possible. I oppose any religious activity in my government and, likewise, I oppose any government meddling with religion. I'm undecided where I stand on the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. On the one hand, taxation equals power over a group and, so, taxing religious groups gives government some control over them. Conversely, if they are not bearing their fair share of the tax burden, is that not government giving preferential treatment to a preferred group? Anyway, I hope you truly respect the Constitution and the First Amendment that you cite and are equally opposed to institutionalized prayer (at government meetings or in government schools) and the respecting of an establishment of religion by the printing of "In God We Trust" on our currency and even now on our license plates.
chris
6:05 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
The Constitution required the government "make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof" to protect the deeply held faith of the Founders that was persecuted in England by a government that did not keep these ideals. Even Ben Franklin, often regarded as among the less religious of the framers, implored prayer as the framers met and deliberated their great work in Philidelphia. I understand your Godless view would want a State that reflects your beliefts, but please don't try to sway opinion by suggesting the Founders nor their great work in the Constitution envisioned nor requires such an accomodation.
Marc
12:38 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Chris, if your comment is directed toward me, it makes no sense. You say that you understand that my "Godless view" wants a state that reflects my beliefs. But the beauty of the Constitution is that it probits me from imposing my "Godless view" on you. Likewise, it prohibits you from imposing your mythological views on me. The Founding fathers designed the Constitution to ensure that no one group imposes its beliefs on any other and that we are ALL free to believe as we choose. The document is very clear in that the state should not advocate ANY religious beliefs. Keeping with my example, "In God We Trust" does not belong on currency. Nor should the currency state "In Allah We Trust", "In Zeus We Trust, or "There is no god", which is my belief. Currency should include its value, USA, date, and perhaps historic images or a president, but it should not take a position on any religious belief, mine or yours. "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
chris
8:08 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Marc, I am simply saying your assertion that the "Founding fathers designed the Constitution to ensure that no one group imposes its beliefs on any other and that we are ALL free to believe as we choose" is true, but they did not even remotely intend that to mean the government would refrain from acknowledging the Creator or that people, including representatives of the government, would be prohibited from expressing their faith in prayer at public events. The fact that the creator is referenced in the Constitution itself, and the practice of the framers themselves to regular pray at government events, clearly shows otherwise. Further, to suggest that "In God We Trust" in the currency or prayer imposes a view on you is a bit of a stretch. Expressing a belief in a publuc setting certanly doesn't impose a belief on you. The act of prayer or acknowleding God on currency requires no action or change of belief by you. Your freedom is not violated in that case.
The point I was trying to make in my previous post is this: I can understand why you might like a public square that is spriritually sanitized, but please just don't try to justify it by saying it was the intention of the Founders or a requirement of the Constitution. I was not and is not.
Marc
9:15 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Chris, with all due respect, you are mistaken on all points. First, the US Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to a creator, nor to any specific religion or belief sysyem. There are only two places that religion is mentioned. In the main document, the only reference is in Article VI, paragraph 3: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The second place is the first part of the First Amendment, the "establishment clause" mentioned above. The founding fathers were brilliant and gave careful consideration to the treatment of religion by the Constitution. It is highly improbable that they just forgot to include mention of god or Jesus or Christianity or any other specific faith. The words of the document are well thought out and clear. It is revisionists like you who seek to twist the words of the document to suit your own personal beliefs. It is revisionists who try to cite the personal beliefs of the founding fathers (often incorrectly) to imply "intent". continued
Marc
9:16 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Second, you are correct in the concept that "expressing a belief in a public setting" does not impose a belief on me and I would defend anyone's right to do so, including mine. However, printing a religious belief on US currency, or government employees leading schoolchildren of all beliefs in prayer in a classroom are not the same as an individual expressing their belief in public. The error you make is that you equate government neutrality or silence about god as an imposition of atheist beliefs on you. That is skewed logic. If the government institutionalized atheist beliefs, there would be statements on money such as "god is a myth", and school teachers would teach children that there is no god. But that's not what atheists advocate. They simply don't want ANY religious belief promoted by our mutual government or supported by our mutual taxes. Keep government out of religion and keep religion out of government. Any mixing of the two is a recipe for disaster, and a violation of our Constitution.
Rhonda Gatch
9:49 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
The relevant facts here relate to religious liberty and decades of rulings by lower courts on the ministerial exception. It is irrelevant whether certain interest groups or Sec. Sebelius agree/s. This article is about a timely court case headed for the US Supreme Court and the tone deafness of much of this current administration. Watch the video clip and you will witness a complete lack of knowledge as a citizen of this country in the HHS secretary, who has attempted to wield more power than is within her realm. Again, research the UNANIMOUS, 9-0 decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.
chris
1:16 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Good point, Rhonda, we're off subject, and I'll quit after this post and give Marc the last word. Marc, you are correct about my error on inclusion of "Creator" in the Constituion, it was rather in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, where we forever establish the source of our liberty as an endowment by the Creator. I fail to see your point that adding a reference to God on the currency or a teacher praying in a classroom falls under making a law regarding the establishment or free exercise of religion. By your standard it would seem the Declaration of Independence itself was an unconstitutional document.
Marc
10:16 am on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Chris, the Declaration does not establish the source of our liberty as an endowment by our Creator. There either is a god or is not (most likely not), irrespective of what is stated in the Declaration. The Declaration preceded the Constitution by several years and is not the law of the land. The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land and was carefully thought-out so as to prohibit government from respecting an establishment of religion.
Do you think it would be OK to print "God is a Myth" or "Allah is the Only True God" on all US currency? If you are not comfortable with either of those statements on our currency, then you understand my point.